Semiotic
Server Details
Verified React chart generation: select, validate, repair, render, and inspect charts through MCP.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- nteract/semiotic
- GitHub Stars
- 2,685
- Server Listing
- nteract/semiotic
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 3.2/5 across 5 of 5 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: create, audit, improve, explain, and schema retrieval. No two tools have overlapping functionality.
All tool names follow the consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., auditChart, createChart), making the set predictable and easy to navigate.
With 5 tools, the server covers the essential chart lifecycle without being excessive or insufficient for its stated purpose.
The set covers creation, analysis, improvement, explanation, and schema guidance. Minor gaps like deletion or listing are absent but may not be needed for this domain.
Available Tools
5 toolsauditChartAudit chart quality and accessibilityARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Run design diagnostics plus accessibility and mobile audits, returning prioritized structured findings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| props | Yes | ||
| component | Yes | ||
| viewportWidth | No |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| status | Yes | |
| component | Yes | |
| surfaceVersion | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds that it returns 'prioritized structured findings,' providing useful output behavior context beyond the annotations. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the action. Every word contributes meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The output schema covers return values, but the description fails to explain the inputs, which are critical for a tool with three parameters, two required. The description is incomplete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without external knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not describe the parameters (component, props, viewportWidth) at all. The description offers no additional meaning beyond the schema field names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool runs design, accessibility, and mobile audits on a chart and returns prioritized findings. The verb 'run' and resource 'chart' are specific, and it is distinct from sibling tools like createChart, explainChart, getChartSchema, and improveChart.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for auditing chart quality but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusion criteria or context is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
createChartCreate and prove a chartBRead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Select, validate, diagnose, render, and prove a static-data Semiotic chart. This is the default public workflow.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | ||
| props | No | Optional props to merge over the selected chart recipe. | |
| theme | No | ||
| intent | No | ||
| audience | No | ||
| component | No | Optional chart preference; the fit-ranked result remains authoritative. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| status | Yes | |
| component | No | |
| surfaceVersion | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false. Description adds workflow steps (select, validate, render, prove) but lacks deeper behavioral details like authentication needs or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences with front-loaded key verbs. No waste, but could provide additional context without losing brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, nested objects), the description is too brief. It omits explanation of parameters like intent, audience, and the meaning of 'prove', leaving gaps despite an output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 33%. Description does not explain parameter usage or semantics beyond the schema's minimal descriptions. Fails to compensate for low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool selects, validates, diagnoses, renders, and proves a static-data Semiotic chart. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like auditChart or explainChart by being the default workflow for creating/proving charts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description indicates it is the default public workflow, implying it is the primary tool for chart creation, but does not explicitly state when to use alternatives or exclude certain scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
explainChartExplain a chart without pixelsBRead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Return reader grounding: chart description, communicative intent, and navigable data structure.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| props | Yes | ||
| component | Yes |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| status | Yes | |
| grounding | Yes | |
| surfaceVersion | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive nature. Description adds that the tool returns three items, providing some behavioral context, but does not elaborate on side effects or permissions beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is a single, front-loaded sentence (11 words) that efficiently states the tool's purpose. However, it sacrifices parameter clarity for brevity, which slightly reduces utility.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With vague input schema (0% coverage, unstructured props) and no parameter descriptions, the description leaves significant gaps for input semantics. Output schema exists but description already notes returns, so that part is covered. Input under-specification limits completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet description provides no explanation for the two required parameters (component, props). Agent receives no guidance on valid values or structure, leaving parameters ambiguous.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool returns three specific outputs (chart description, communicative intent, navigable data structure) for a chart given component and props. Distinguishes from sibling tools like createChart or getChartSchema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like auditChart or improveChart. The description implies it's for understanding a chart, but lacks exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
getChartSchemaGet a chart schemaBRead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Return canonical Semiotic prop-schema guidance for code editing and advanced configuration.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| component | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds that the tool returns 'canonical prop-schema guidance' but does not discuss error behavior, what happens without a parameter, or any side effects. Minimal added value beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise but could benefit from more detail on the parameter or usage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given one optional parameter with no description, no output schema, and no usage guidance, the description is incomplete. It lacks essential context about parameter semantics, return format, and when to use this tool over siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter 'component' with no description (0% coverage). The description does not explain what 'component' is, its expected values, or its role in the return value. No meaningful addition beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns 'canonical Semiotic prop-schema guidance' for code editing and advanced configuration, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like auditChart, createChart, etc., which perform different actions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (auditChart, createChart, explainChart, improveChart). It does not specify context or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
improveChartImprove an existing chartCRead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Diagnose a chart configuration, assess data fit, and propose repairs or variants.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | ||
| props | Yes | ||
| intent | No | ||
| component | Yes |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| status | Yes | |
| component | Yes | |
| surfaceVersion | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive nature. The description adds context about diagnosing and proposing, but no additional behavioral details beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, but may be too brief for a tool with 4 parameters and output schema. Adequate but lacks detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 0% schema coverage, 4 parameters, and an output schema, the description should explain inputs and outputs but does not. Incomplete for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% for 4 parameters. The description provides no information about any parameter, leaving agents to infer meaning from parameter names alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses specific verbs (diagnose, assess, propose) and clearly identifies the resource (chart configuration). It distinguishes from sibling tools like auditChart (audit only) and createChart (creation).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Lacks context for when not to use or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Your Connectors
Sign in to create a connector for this server.